United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
J. BRYAN United States District Judge
ORDER is issued sua sponte by the Court following
its review of the file and the issuance of its January 10,
2017 Order. Dkt. 41.
Filing of Joint Status Report.
January 10, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a Joint
Status Report by February 6, 2017. Dkt. 41 at 5, 6. The Joint
Status Report was initially due December 15, 2016. Dkt. 10.
The Court reminded Plaintiff of the initial deadline, with no
response from Plaintiff. Dkt. 31 at 3. The January 10, 2017
Order stated that “[t]he case will be dismissed for
failure to prosecute unless Plaintiff files a Joint Status
Report on or before February 6, 2017.” Dkt. 41 at 6.
January 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document entitled,
“Objections, ” (Dkt. 42) which makes no direct
reference to the January 10, 2017 Order. Plaintiff
“Objections” filing does, however, make one
reference to the Joint Status Report:
“Plaintiff nor Defendant submitted a joint status
report because we didn't agree with stipulations. It
would be bias and prejudicial due to the Defendant City of
Lakewood Motion to Dismiss was not agreed upon by any of the
parties in a stipulated order. The other parties didn't
show up for Summons.[sic]”
Dkt. 42. At 2.
on the January 10, 2017, Plaintiff's failure to file a
Joint Status Report would be a sufficient reason to dismiss
the case. Nonetheless, it appears that Plaintiff made some
effort to file a Joint Status Report. It is not clear why
Plaintiff contacted Defendant City of Lakewood, which has
been dismissed from the case. Dkt. 41 at 6. Plaintiff's
“Objections” filing mentions that “the
other parties didn't show up for Summons, ” which
could include Defendant J. Mills, the sole remaining named
defendant. However, as discussed below, Defendant J. Mills
has not been properly served, which could explain why
Defendant J. Mills did not engage with Plaintiff.
Court was explicit in its January 10, 2017 Order that
Plaintiff must file a Joint Status Report or face dismissal.
Plaintiff did not file a Joint Status Report, so dismissal
for failure to prosecute would be proper. The Court need not
dismiss the case for failure to prosecute, however, because
the case should be dismissed for defective service of process
as to Defendant J. Mills, who is the sole remaining
defendant. See below.
Service of Process of J. Mills.
January 10, 2017 Order stated:
To avoid dismissal, by that date [of February 6, 2017],
Plaintiff should: (1) Properly serve Officer J. Mills of the
University Place Police Department with a copy of the summons
and Amended Complaint (Dkt. 4); and
(2) File proof of service with the Court, demonstrating
compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4. Plaintiff should not herself
effectuate service of process. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
at 5 (emphasis added). The Court based its January 10, 2017
Order in part on Defendant City of Lakewood attorney's
declaration, which attached two exhibits: (1) a police report
written by “Joshua Mills” of “University
Place Police” written about Plaintiff, and (2) a
“true and correct copy of Officer Joshua Mills'
business card, given to Plaintiff on the date of her